Can MPs still block a no-deal Brexit?

Next week looks set to be the last chance for MPs opposed to a no-deal Brexit to stop Boris Johnson taking the UK out of the EU without an agreement on 31 October.

The prime minister sparked cries of a constitutional coup on Wednesday when he announced plans to suspend parliament for five weeks from around 10 September until the Queen’s Speech on the 14 October. While debate has raged about the legality and ethics of prorogation, the immediate upshot is that MPs will have less than a week to enact legislation, or bring a vote of no confidence in the government, to prevent a no deal before Parliament is suspended.

The BBC says that in theory, unless a new plan is agreed, Johnson “does not need to do anything for a no-deal Brexit to happen”, putting the ball firmly in the MPs’ court.

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

MPs take back control

Constitutionally, MPs have two potential routes: either “take control of Parliament’s timetable or get rid of the Government”, says the BBC.

“Neither would guarantee blocking a no-deal Brexit, but they could lead them there,” the broadcaster adds.

The former option would see MPs attempt to take charge of the parliamentary agenda by adding amendments to government bills to prepare for no deal, for example on agriculture and trade. However, ministers have since said no new legislation will be needed between now and Brexit, leaving this route all but dead in the water.

A more likely route, and one which parliamentarians appear to have united around, would see MPs attempt to put forward a new law blocking no deal or requesting an extension from Brussels.

Politico’s Charlie Cooper reports that anti-no-dealers were up at 2am this morning coordinating tactics, which are likely to involve requesting an emergency Standing Order 24 (SO24) debate in the Commons as soon as parliament returns on Tuesday. An SO24 would allow backbench MPs to instigate an emergency debate and vote with permission of the Speaker John Bercow, thus “setting up the opportunity to seize control of the order paper and table anti no-deal legislation”, says Cooper.

Some argue whether new legislation could be passed in time given the truncated schedule, while critics of such a move say this could provide a dangerous precedent given that government normally controls the parliamentary timetable.

Much rests on Bercow, but given his statement condemning prorogation as a “constitutional outrage”, it is a fair bet he would be open to the idea.

What about a vote of no confidence?

If legislation to delay Brexit fails, the nuclear option remains bringing down the government with a vote of no confidence.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has not ruled out calling for such a vote as soon as parliament returns next week.

The problem is that the animosity in the Commons towards the Labour leader means he cannot be assured of securing enough votes to topple Johnson.

One of the most outspoken opponents of a no-deal Brexit, former attorney general Dominic Grieve, argues that, under the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act, if the Tories lost a vote of confidence, MPs could seek to put a new government of national unity in its place. This has prompted the leader of the Lib Dems Jo Swinson to suggest either veteran Tory MP Ken Clarke or Labour’s Harriet Harman as caretaker prime ministers whose sole job would be to ask for an Article 50 extension and prepare for a general election.

According to Buzzfeed’s Alex Wickham, “The government’s calculation has long been that the ‘moment of maximum danger’ comes at a potential no-confidence vote. Number 10 officials said that pro-Remain MPs would now have to make the ultimate decision next week: call a no-confidence vote and risk ‘being checkmated immediately’, or wait and see if Johnson can achieve a new Brexit deal.”

He adds: “Downing Street is bullish that it would win any such vote, but insists that if Johnson loses, he would refuse to resign, then call an election for after Brexit day, dissolve Parliament, and watch the UK fall out of the EU.”

The prime minister’s chief strategist and the brains behind Vote Leave, Dominic Cummings, has already stated that it is too late for MPs to launch such an audacious takedown of Johnson, who could simply ignore it and stay on, as there is no written law stating that a sitting PM must resign in such circumstances.

The Daily Telegraph reports that the suggestion has “provoked a furious response” from opponents, including Grieve, who said that Johnson refusing to step down would be “simply breathtaking, stupid, infantile, and it won’t work”.

Former foreign secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind warned this week that such a move would trigger the “gravest” constitutional crisis since the Civil War.

In a letter to The Times, he wrote: “I have great confidence that the prime minister will ignore the advice of Dominic Cummings.

“King Charles lost his head by flouting the constitution. Mr Johnson will wish to keep his, while some around him are, clearly, losing theirs.”

Meanwhile, Grieve told the newspaper that in the event of Johnson ignoring a no-confidence vote, the Queen could be “left with no choice but to sack” Johnson.

“The Queen is not a decorative extra. It’s true she has sought to keep herself well away from the cut and thrust of politics but at the end of the day there are residual powers and responsibilities which lie with her. She might have to dispense with his services herself,” Grieve said.

“The constitutional principles are absolutely clear.”